If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Pacers Payroll

the pacers payroll is currently at about $74,000,000 for next year....this will only go up if we resign free agents dale davis, james jones, or john edwards....this also doesnt include the MLE if we were to use it(part of it may need to be used to resign dd)...this also doesnt include the guaranteed contract that comes with a 1st round draft pick....

it is quite possible we could be staring a payroll of over $80,000,000....yikes

that would be good enuff for 3rd highest behind only the knicks and the mavericks...thats a wee bit scary.....especially for a small market team....thank god for the good deal on the conseco lease....

u cant help but think theyre gonna try to cut some salary...somehow....gives some contracts away....they almost have to....i cant believe that number is part of the desired budget....should be interesting....

Re: Pacers Payroll

Even if we didn't re-sign Dale I am just sick of injured players. Sorry I've just lost patience with them (yes for those of you who want to bring him up I'm sure I'd be sick of Brad doing the same thing now to).

Re: Pacers Payroll

Foretaz,

There is also one more thing to consider. The Pacers have usually tried to extend worthwhile players entering the last year of their rookie contracts. Look for Freddie to get an extension before the season starts, assuming the new CBA is similar to the old one in the handling of extensions.

Re: Pacers Payroll

There is also one more thing to consider. The Pacers have usually tried to extend worthwhile players entering the last year of their rookie contracts. Look for Freddie to get an extension before the season starts, assuming the new CBA is similar to the old one in the handling of extensions.

Good point. But the new salary won't kick in until the following season.

Re: Pacers Payroll

Our payroll should be so much lower. 2 players won't even be playing next year (Reggie and Bender), but they will be in the top 5 in salary on our team. Pollard really only plays against teams with really big guys (Cleveland, Heat)...and Croshere plays, but he sucks...and I wish he didn't play.

Re: Pacers Payroll

the pacers payroll is currently at about $74,000,000 for next year....this will only go up if we resign free agents dale davis, james jones, or john edwards....this also doesnt include the MLE if we were to use it(part of it may need to be used to resign dd)...this also doesnt include the guaranteed contract that comes with a 1st round draft pick....

it is quite possible we could be staring a payroll of over $80,000,000....yikes

that would be good enuff for 3rd highest behind only the knicks and the mavericks...thats a wee bit scary.....especially for a small market team....thank god for the good deal on the conseco lease....

u cant help but think theyre gonna try to cut some salary...somehow....gives some contracts away....they almost have to....i cant believe that number is part of the desired budget....should be interesting....
4

Foretaz---

Placing us in 3rd position next year forgets that other teams will also increase in payroll this off-season.

Re: Pacers Payroll

If Austin doesn't exercise the option, then he is the biggest team player in the NBA or he's getting money under the table, or both. The contract wasn't a performance-based deal, so he wouldn't have gotten even more money if he would have been a 25-10-5 all-star.

Re: Pacers Payroll

First off, it doesn't matter how much they spend on salaries. The Simons aren't in it to make money until they sell the team. Every team has bad contracts and I think we could be a lot worse off. Indiana spends a lot but they have a ton of talent. I don't think this is anything worth worrying about.

Re: Pacers Payroll

First off, it doesn't matter how much they spend on salaries. The Simons aren't in it to make money until they sell the team. Every team has bad contracts and I think we could be a lot worse off. Indiana spends a lot but they have a ton of talent. I don't think this is anything worth worrying about.

It matters greatly how much they spend on salaries. As much as we grouse and complain about needing to make a championship type move one of the biggest impediments is exactly our salary situation. If payroll wasn't an issue then (unless somebody knows some deep dark secret or coverup that dwarfs 'migrainegate') then Brad Miller would still be here. It would've been a no brainer to go ahead and resign him... Afterall, if the conditioning issue proved true then we could've just mothballed him and went another direction since it would 'only be money'.

Anything that gets in the way of the team's flexibility to improve or a championship quest worries me. Overpaying players is a serious problem to any team's aspirations unless ownership or management has a money tree and is willing to continually throw cash towards a championship.

The Pacers are a team that will, to a point, pay players well. But, "loyal to a fault" is a discussion angle that I've had many times. I'm sure many teams do have bad contracts but how many teams have 3 of their biggest contracts going to players who will barely take the floor if at all? That's a problem that needs to be addressed and it can't keep happening if this team wants to take its best shot at winning a championship.

-Bball

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

Re: Pacers Payroll

It matters greatly how much they spend on salaries. As much as we grouse and complain about needing to make a championship type move one of the biggest impediments is exactly our salary situation. If payroll wasn't an issue then (unless somebody knows some deep dark secret or coverup that dwarfs 'migrainegate') then Brad Miller would still be here. It would've been a no brainer to go ahead and resign him... Afterall, if the conditioning issue proved true then we could've just mothballed him and went another direction since it would 'only be money'.

Anything that gets in the way of the team's flexibility to improve or a championship quest worries me. Overpaying players is a serious problem to any team's aspirations unless ownership or management has a money tree and is willing to continually throw cash towards a championship.

The Pacers are a team that will, to a point, pay players well. But, "loyal to a fault" is a discussion angle that I've had many times. I'm sure many teams do have bad contracts but how many teams have 3 of their biggest contracts going to players who will barely take the floor if at all? That's a problem that needs to be addressed and it can't keep happening if this team wants to take its best shot at winning a championship.

-Bball

NBA owners are worried about winning, not making money off the team. They pay what they have to pay. I'm sure they don't want to spend past a certain limit but it still doesn't really matter to anyone but the people paying the salaries.

Re: Pacers Payroll

Our team salary total has skyrocketed because the Pacers correctly guessed there would be no luxury tax this season. It looks like they are guessing the same is true for next season. If it turns out the Simon bro think a luxury tax is going to be levied big time on the Pacers this coming season, watch Pacers team salaries take a dive immediately.

Team salaries were held in check two years ago because of the threat of the luxury tax. The same was true for most teams. It is a mistake to think most NBA owners don't care about finances and just want to win.

Re: Pacers Payroll

It matters greatly how much they spend on salaries. As much as we grouse and complain about needing to make a championship type move one of the biggest impediments is exactly our salary situation. If payroll wasn't an issue then (unless somebody knows some deep dark secret or coverup that dwarfs 'migrainegate') then Brad Miller would still be here. It would've been a no brainer to go ahead and resign him... Afterall, if the conditioning issue proved true then we could've just mothballed him and went another direction since it would 'only be money'.

Although it is correct to say that their big payday will come when they sell the team, they still do not want to absorb large annual losses on the way to that payday. They might be willing to take a hit in any one single year, but they certainly wouldn't want to take a hit year after year.

Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that somebody has to pay for those salaries. And it isn't going to be the Simons. That leaves, oh about 17,000 other people to pay for the higher salaries.

However, Indy is a small-to-mid market team. Which basically means that the typical fan in Indy is only willing to absorb up to a certain threshhold before they begin attending fewer games.

So, wierd as it may seem, there is a pretty delicate balance between fan attendance and player salaries.

The Simons don't really want higher salaries because they really don't want to have to raise ticket prices. But if their choices came down to taking large losses year after year or raising ticket prices, I assure you they would raise ticket prices.

Re: Pacers Payroll

Are you saying the Pacers were so convinced that Brad Miller would break down at the end of every season or longer term that they weren't interested in him at all?

....Or they were uncertain of him enough that they (management) didn't want to tie up big money long term?

If it is the second one, which I believed it to be, then what is wrong about my reply to Jesus? Jesus said that the Simons didn't care about money or team salary. IF that was true (and I believe it to be false) then why not roll the dice and sign Brad Miller to whatever the NBA market value proved to be (matching his best offer)? According to Jesus, the Simons' wouldn't care... it's only money. And Brad Miller was coming off an All Star season, was a true center, and already a Pacer. If he breaks down, so be it, Jesus says the Simons don't care about the money. If a light bulb goes off and he learns about conditioning, or sidesteps injury anyway, then they are ahead of the game.

To me, the target keeps moving on this issue of Brad Miller. I don't see how my comment can be wrong at all unless you are now saying they wanted rid of Brad Miller.

I wish the team applied the same rules to other players rather than continually deal in double standards.

My point to Jesus was the Simons care about money.... at the least they care about 'losing' money or throwing it down too big of a hole. If they did not care at all (as Jesus claimed) then not resigning Brad Miller was stupid. He'd have to be worth the gamble if you didn't care about coming up snake-eyes. There'd simply be no penalty that would matter. If he becomes injured the Simons would just shrug because they don't care about the money (Jesus says). He'd be no worse than having Pollard around.

OTOH... If the Simons did care about money then you have to weigh the pluses and minuses on Brad Miller and his long term ability to stay on the court and you have a decision to make. Which is where I believe the truth to be.

I'm telling Jesus money matters.

You're now saying (altho maybe you don't mean to be) that either money doesn't matter or that the Pacers wanted Brad gone at any cost. Otherwise, I don't see how you can disagree with my comment.

-Bball

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

Re: Pacers Payroll

Are you saying the Pacers were so convinced that Brad Miller would break down at the end of every season or longer term that they weren't interested in him at all?

....Or they were uncertain of him enough that they (management) didn't want to tie up big money long term?

If it is the second one, which I believed it to be, then what is wrong about my reply to Jesus? Jesus said that the Simons didn't care about money or team salary. IF that was true (and I believe it to be false) then why not roll the dice and sign Brad Miller to whatever the NBA market value proved to be (matching his best offer)? According to Jesus, the Simons' wouldn't care... it's only money. And Brad Miller was coming off an All Star season, was a true center, and already a Pacer. If he breaks down, so be it, Jesus says the Simons don't care about the money. If a light bulb goes off and he learns about conditioning, or sidesteps injury anyway, then they are ahead of the game.

To me, the target keeps moving on this issue of Brad Miller. I don't see how my comment can be wrong at all unless you are now saying they wanted rid of Brad Miller.

I wish the team applied the same rules to other players rather than continually deal in double standards.

My point to Jesus was the Simons care about money.... at the least they care about 'losing' money or throwing it down too big of a hole. If they did not care at all (as Jesus claimed) then not resigning Brad Miller was stupid. He'd have to be worth the gamble if you didn't care about coming up snake-eyes. There'd simply be no penalty that would matter. If he becomes injured the Simons would just shrug because they don't care about the money (Jesus says). He'd be no worse than having Pollard around.

OTOH... If the Simons did care about money then you have to weigh the pluses and minuses on Brad Miller and his long term ability to stay on the court and you have a decision to make. Which is where I believe the truth to be.

I'm telling Jesus money matters.

You're now saying (altho maybe you don't mean to be) that either money doesn't matter or that the Pacers wanted Brad gone at any cost. Otherwise, I don't see how you can disagree with my comment.

-Bball

I don't, I clearly misinterpreted your original reply to JS. I thought I was going to have to give you some smartass reply of "I'm not going to explain it again. If you don't get it after a million times, you're not going to get it after a million and one."